Of course life can come from non-life.

tanzanos · Nov 28, 2007

FoeHammer said:
No, that is where science begins. Science is a tool, it can be used to make or it can be used to break, it depends whose hands it is in and I, for one, do not trust it in the hands of atheists.Magic is for men not God.Genesis tells us how God did it.
I don't have to come up with a how, Genesis has already given me that.

FoeHammer.

AHH! the contradictions in terms. Creationism is TOTALLY anti science. Thus putting science in the hands of creationists is like putting the wolf to care for the sheep.

Perhaps you can enlighten us on how the computer you are using is a possibility when your beliefs do not allow for its existence?

Creationism goes against everything scientific. So don't tell me that you have never been to a doctor. You have never used anything science has created? Biology without evolution makes no sense. Medicine without biology makes no sense. All the fields of science eventually have to conform to the laws of physics. The very laws you make fun of with creationism.

Do you have children? if so where do you take them when they are sick?

You obviously have absolutely no idea what evolution is or how the rules of science work.

Enjoying the fruits of science while damning them at the same time rings of hypocrisy and Jesus did say " Hypocrites and pharisees". I wonder what he meant?

FoeHammer · Nov 28, 2007

Contracelsus said:
But science can't "begin" with "God didit". That's a game stopper.

No it isn't. You can accept that God created the sun and use science to gain knowledge and understanding about its composition and function.

Really? Why not? Do you think an atheist will "misuse" science?

No independent absolute moral authority.

I don't see a role for religion there anywhere.

God is the independent absolute moral authority.

Well, then, perhaps you could explain it in "non-magical terms"?

You can read Genesis for yourself.

FoeHammer.

Loudmouth · Nov 28, 2007

FoeHammer said:
The atheists quest for their holy grail, a "natural" mechanism for abiogenesis, and you're asking me why "we" would try to find it?

By "we" I meant scientists. The holy grail of science is the unified theory in physics, but that aside abiogenesis is one of the goals of scientific discovery. Are you telling me that this scientific research should stop?

Why? They're no threat to a belief in creation.

What would be a threat, or is your belief dogmatic?

FoeHammer · Nov 28, 2007

Naraoia said:
If life needs conditions fundamentally different from those present on the modern earth to form from simple chemical precursors (a reducing atmosphere immediately jumps to mind) then it simply cannot spontaneously reappear on the modern earth.

Go on then, describe to me the the conditions on the early earth.

Besides, even if life could form on something like earth today, there might be too much competition from existing organisms for newly formed, inevitably more inefficient organisms or proto-organisms to survive.

Not my problem.

If you want to observe abiogenesis, you can't just sit by a lake and wait for it to happen. You must find or yourself provide very specific conditions, preferably ones similar to the original conditions under which life on earth first appeared.

Your problem just keeps getting bigger doesn't it?

Would water boil in your kettle if you never heated it? Does that mean that water requires an intelligence to boil? No. All it means is that water requires specific conditions to boil.

The difference being of course that we can observe, test and demonstrate those particular conditions.

FoeHammer.

Loudmouth · Nov 28, 2007

FoeHammer said:
No it isn't. You can accept that God created the sun and use science to gain knowledge and understanding about its composition and function.

Why can't you use science to gain knowledge on how suns form? Are you saying that scientists should not study star formation?

No independent absolute moral authority.

Without an independent moral authority how do you know that what God commands is moral? How do you know that God is moral without knowing what is moral independent of God?

Naraoia · Nov 28, 2007

FoeHammer said:
No it isn't. You can accept that God created the sun and use science to gain knowledge and understanding about its composition and function.

Aham, but in this respect "how the sun was made" and "how the sun works" are completely independent questions and irrelevant to each other. I thought the situation we were talking about is when you accept that God created the sun and you use (or refuse to use) science to find out how he created the sun. At least that was what I was talking about.

No independent absolute moral authority.

God is the independent absolute moral authority.

Oh, I see. Does your independent absolute moral authority stop Christians from being really unchristian at times? And does the supposed lack of such an authority stop most atheists from being good responsible people?

You can read Genesis for yourself.

Since I've already done that and still don't see the non-magical explanation, perhaps you could help me understand it.

LittleNipper · Nov 28, 2007

tanzanos said:
AHH! the contradictions in terms. Creationism is TOTALLY anti science. Thus putting science in the hands of creationists is like putting the wolf to care for the sheep.

Perhaps you can enlighten us on how the computer you are using is a possibility when your beliefs do not allow for its existence?

Creationism goes against everything scientific. So don't tell me that you have never been to a doctor. You have never used anything science has created? Biology without evolution makes no sense. Medicine without biology makes no sense. All the fields of science eventually have to conform to the laws of physics. The very laws you make fun of with creationism.

Do you have children? if so where do you take them when they are sick?

You obviously have absolutely no idea what evolution is or how the rules of science work.

Enjoying the fruits of science while damning them at the same time rings of hypocrisy and Jesus did say " Hypocrites and pharisees". I wonder what he meant?

The fruits of science are arrived at through hard work and not dramatizing an imaginative view of man's development through selective breeding. The computer I work on didn't evolve from anything. It was manufactured. Yes, there were technological improvements along the way, but man is not GOD. GOD doesn't need practice or experimentation. GOD is not very scientific. HE doesn't need to be. When my son is sick, I've prayed and taken him to a doctor and not an evolutionist by trade.

Contracelsus · Nov 28, 2007

LittleNipper said:
The computer I work on didn't evolve from nothing.

It sorta kinda did, though. It evolved from previous generations which ultimately evolved from the abacus which ultimately evolved from counting and subatizing.

GOD doesn't need practice or experimentation.

Is that why he had to wipe the slate clean with Noah?

Is that why he had to send his only begotten son to redeem mankind?

GOD is not very scientific.

Couldn't said it better myself!

HE doesn't need to be. When my son is sick, I've prayed and taken him to a doctor and not an evolutionist by trade.

Most doctors will be trained in biology which in modern form is built largely on evolutionary theory.

You must have looked long and hard before you found a doctor who wasn't associated with modern biology.

Hope your child was able to wait.

Contracelsus · Nov 28, 2007

FoeHammer said:
No it isn't. You can accept that God created the sun and use science to gain knowledge and understanding about its composition and function.

But why bother? What if God decided tomorrow to make electricity not work? He could. Why bother even learning about how it works if it's all just God's caprice that it serves under?

[/color]No independent absolute moral authority.

Oh, and the only reason to be honest about things is because God is watching?

That's good.

You can read Genesis for yourself.

I did. I didn't learn much.

Naraoia · Nov 28, 2007

FoeHammer said:
Go on then, describe to me the the conditions on the early earth. Not my problem.Your problem just keeps getting bigger doesn't it?The difference being of course that we can observe, test and demonstrate those particular conditions.

FoeHammer.

I was trying to explain you why you (probably) need labs to replicate the conditions which allow life to form. And that using laboratory equipment to replicate a set of conditions that had probably occurred in nature does not mean that only an intelligence could create the phenomenon in question, because nature could set up the same (or very similar) conditions.

FoeHammer said:
Go on then, describe to me the the conditions on the early earth.

Ok, let's put together a few things. Probably a non-exhaustive list, as I'm working mostly from my memory, and I'm not exactly the expert in this.

- An atmosphere of methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, etc. (though I've seen other scenarios where nitrogen and CO2 dominate, and I'm not sure which is the more accepted version) Basically various volcanic gases, and no or very little free oxygen (oxygen, by the way, is one of the most reactive elements, so if there is nothing to provide a constant supply of it then its levels will quickly decrease).

- Probably stronger radiation than today (no oxygen, so no ozone layer), which may have been one of the energy sources for the assembly of early organic compounds in the atmosphere or on the surface. (Although it must be noted that UV radiation is not very nice to nucleic acids, so it may be more likely that the first organisms evolved in more sheltered environments such as rock cracks or deep sea vents)

- Regular bombardment by all sorts of space rocks, leftover from the formation of planets. Many of these rocks would have carried water and/or organic compounds (including amino acids) that are common in space.

- Highly active volcanism - the source of most of the early atmosphere, including carbon-containing gases; plus another potential energy source (eg. geothermal heat or undersea vents).

- Obviously no advanced organisms to compete with early replicators for resources.

- Looooong and longer time.

In such an environment (though as you can see even from this sketchy list that there are still many questions to be settled about exactly what it was like), there was plenty of room for natural chemical experiments, and given the amount of organic stuff probably available on early earth and the amount of time certainly available there was a good chance that some autocatalytic reaction system rears its head sooner or later. And as soon as the first chemical replicators capable of mutation had appeared evolution would have taken over to perfect them. First, even relatively inefficient replicators could reproduce successfully because they had nutrients and energy all around them. Later, as there were more and more of these imperfect proto-organisms, competition kicked in and thus we ended up with the global arms race still going on today.

An interesting article about the possibility that a thick carbon-rich fog could have yielded a rich and constant supply of organic material on the early earth (and shielded the surface from mutagenic UV radiation).

Not my problem.

Not nobody's neither (wow, that was a nice piece of George R R Martin's smallfolkish language from me ) Certainly not in the sense that it would prevent abiogenesis from ever happening.

Your problem just keeps getting bigger doesn't it?

How? This is a very relevant practical problem, but how would it falsify abiogenesis in any way?

The difference being of course that we can observe, test and demonstrate those particular conditions.

And we can infer, test and demonstrate the others. Inference is not as good as observation but that doesn't mean that we can't possibly know anything we can't observe directly. Neither does it mean that if we can't observe the natural conditions behind a phenomenon directly than there are no natural conditions at all.

LittleNipper · Nov 28, 2007

Contracelsus said:
It sorta kinda did, though. It evolved from previous generations which ultimately evolved from the abacus which ultimately evolved from counting and subatizing.

Is that why he had to wipe the slate clean with Noah?

Is that why he had to send his only begotten son to redeem mankind?

Couldn't said it better myself!

Most doctors will be trained in biology which in modern form is built largely on evolutionary theory.

You must have looked long and hard before you found a doctor who wasn't associated with modern biology.

Hope your child was able to wait.

GOD predestined to send HIS SON to die for the sins of man before GOD created humanity. Doctors may have learned about the theory of evolution in school. Doctors do not practice evolution. They apply prescribed methods and surgical procedures.

Naraoia · Nov 28, 2007

LittleNipper said:
GOD predestined to send HIS SON to die for the sins of man before GOD created humanity. Doctors may have learned about the theory of evolution in school. Doctors do not practice evolution. They apply prescribed methods and surgical procedures.

And they prescribe antibiotics that must be constantly improved if we don't want all bacteria to outevolve them.

It seems to me that your God was really, really bored. I mean, why on earth did he not create a good humanity in the first place? I guess he figured that a couple of unnecessary plot twists would make the story more exciting.

"The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain."- Genesis 6:5-6.

This doesn't sound like the almighty Creator had planned it all that way. It bl00dy well sounds like he regrets some grave mistake.

Loudmouth · Nov 28, 2007

LittleNipper said:
The fruits of science are arrived at through hard work and not dramatizing an imaginative view of man's development through selective breeding.

Is science the dramatization of a creation myth?

Secondly, what dramatization are you speaking of? The fossils are real. The genetic evidence is real.

GOD doesn't need practice or experimentation.

Noah's Flood says otherwise.

When my son is sick, I've prayed and taken him to a doctor and not an evolutionist by trade.

An evolutionist probably was involved in making the medication.

Loudmouth · Nov 28, 2007

LittleNipper said:
Doctors do not practice evolution. They apply prescribed methods and surgical procedures.

Many of those prescribed methods and surgical procedures are founded on the theory of evolution.

tanzanos · Nov 29, 2007

LittleNipper said:
The fruits of science are arrived at through hard work and not dramatizing an imaginative view of man's development through selective breeding. The computer I work on didn't evolve from anything. It was manufactured. Yes, there were technological improvements along the way, but man is not GOD. GOD doesn't need practice or experimentation. GOD is not very scientific. HE doesn't need to be. When my son is sick, I've prayed and taken him to a doctor and not an evolutionist by trade.

Wow you really haven't the foggiest when it comes to science. The word evolve does not apply strictly to biological life. Secondly I said that if Creationism is to be taken seriously then how on earth do you justify the existence of computers since creationism does not allow for such things to exist. To be more precise; creationism goes against the fundamental laws of physics thus against all science.
The bottom line? NO SCIENCE NO COMPUTERS!
Do you understand or should I make it plainer?

FoeHammer · Nov 30, 2007

Naraoia said:
I protest in the name of all scientists. Science looks for explanations that explain something, explanations you can understand and apply. Useful explanations. The only use of Goddidit is reassuring yourself.

Wrong! You don't need to know the origin of trees before you can use a saw. Science is a tool, people who use that tool decide what they will use it for and both have their limits. you're free to try but only an idiot would attempt to saw a piece of wood using a hammer. God gave man the capacity to develop science as a tool and now there are those who want to try to use it in an attempt to get rid of Him... an extremly foolish and eternally deadly undertaking.

It can make no predictions, it gives us no tools to advance our knowledge of the world, not applications in technology. Not even a real understanding. You don't understand miracles, that's why they are called miracles. Then what do you call the supposed mechanism God used to create stuff? Really? Then pray explain. Somehow I didn't think I understood how it happened when I read Genesis.

There's your problem right there! You think that God should conform to a human standard. You could only understand how ridiculous that is were you willing to conform to His. Have you not studied history nor looked at the world around you sufficient to have worked out that, for all his science, man cannot be trusted to care for man nor that over which he was given dominion. I am accused of being anti-science, I am not, it has its uses, but I am anti those who promote it, and themselves by asscociation, as though it were a god. Science and scientists have their limits... recognise and try to understand that simple fact

FoeHammer.

FoeHammer · Nov 30, 2007

Contracelsus said:
From Foe's cryptic comment and other Creationists, it sounds to me like Creationists are preparing to move the goalposts. Since they know that science will likely ultimately come around to figuring out how life does arise abiogenetically, they are pre-emptively attacking the methods by decreeing that reproducing the events in the lab doesn't count.

Note how this differs from their usual "you need to be able to replicate evolution" tactic many creationists use to argue against evolution.

Whatever serves their needs, sounds like to me.

Apparently the end does justify the means for Creationism!

If creationists have to move the goalposts it's only because the atheistic evo's have set them up on the wrong playing field.

FoeHammer.

FoeHammer · Nov 30, 2007

tanzanos said:
AHH! the contradictions in terms. Creationism is TOTALLY anti science. Thus putting science in the hands of creationists is like putting the wolf to care for the sheep.

Perhaps you can enlighten us on how the computer you are using is a possibility when your beliefs do not allow for its existence?

Creationism goes against everything scientific. So don't tell me that you have never been to a doctor. You have never used anything science has created? Biology without evolution makes no sense. Medicine without biology makes no sense. All the fields of science eventually have to conform to the laws of physics. The very laws you make fun of with creationism.

Do you have children? if so where do you take them when they are sick?

You obviously have absolutely no idea what evolution is or how the rules of science work.

Enjoying the fruits of science while damning them at the same time rings of hypocrisy and Jesus did say " Hypocrites and pharisees". I wonder what he meant?

Heads up... Wise up.

FoeHammer.

Catholicon · Nov 30, 2007

FoeHammer said:
Wrong! You don't need to know the origin of trees before you can use a saw.

How is that analogy even remotely applicable?

Loudmouth · Nov 30, 2007

FoeHammer said:
Wrong! You don't need to know the origin of trees before you can use a saw.

But you do need to know the source of trees before you study them scientifically. How could you study the life cycle, ecology, and climate change without knowing how trees originate, reproduce, and grow?

God gave man the capacity to develop science as a tool and now there are those who want to try to use it in an attempt to get rid of Him... an extremly foolish and eternally deadly undertaking.

Man created science and found that God did not exist in the Gaps.

There's your problem right there! You think that God should conform to a human standard.

Since humans created God it would only make sense.

Have you not studied history nor looked at the world around you sufficient to have worked out that, for all his science, man cannot be trusted to care for man nor that over which he was given dominion.

No human has ever caused a world wide flood that killed all life on Earth except for a boat full of breeding pairs.

I am accused of being anti-science, I am not, it has its uses, but I am anti those who promote it, and themselves by asscociation, as though it were a god. Science and scientists have their limits... recognise and try to understand that simple fact

FoeHammer.

No one is treating science as a god. You are telling us that your religion should be able to tell scientists what they should and should not study. The only one confusing science and gods is you.

Of course life can come from non-life.

tanzanos

Guest

Veteran

Contributor

Veteran

Contributor

Apprentice Biologist

Contributor

Senior Member

Senior Member

Apprentice Biologist

Contributor

Apprentice Biologist

Contributor

Contributor

tanzanos

Guest

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Regular Member

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency